From Blue Giant to Blue Marble

Saturday, June 2, 2012

Welcome! My first book is a labor of love and a product of my personal challenge to solve The World's Most Intractable Problems. From Blue Giant to Blue Marble is my attempt to find an answer to the ancient mystery of "Where do we come from?".

I also wanted to write this book in a style that most people could enjoy. Chapter 2 is a bit heavy on the science - persevere and you will be rewarded!

What follows are 9 Chapters from my book From Blue Giant to Blue Marble. If you're intrigued by what you read, why not purchase a copy to get the WHOLE story?

Please take the time to comment - or at least vote in the survey (icons on Right). Enjoy.

Dedications

I met Douglas Adams once (it
was at a book signing in Ann Arbor in the mid 80's). The man was larger
than life, and when I say that he was larger than life - I mean
literally. He had an enormous head that was punctuated with his thick
curly black hair. His hands had equally gigantic proportions - he must
have had quite some difficulty in using a keyboard (an affliction that I
am well acquainted with). With a stroke of a pen he created my most
prized literary possession - a 1st edition (now autographed) copy of So
Long and Thanks for All the Fish. Our entire conversation consisted of
"Hi" and "Bye", but I was struck by his calm assertiveness and the way
he carried himself (I had plenty of time to observe him as I waited in
line for what seemed an eternity).

Although he is known
as a humorist, his seemingly "ridiculous" characters and situations in
his widely acclaimed Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (5 book) Trilogy (I
highly recommend it) were more than comedic genius. They were key to my
own exploration of Astronomy. His approach to the cosmos inspired me
greatly and I will utilize his genius to find The Question to the answer
of (What is) Life, the Universe and Everything.

I
never met Carl Sagan, but I do share his birthday. He created the most
important public television series of all time - Cosmos. His soothing
voice and genuine excitement for Astronomy make this program a must see
for all ages. He was able to explain many scientific theories and
present data in a very easy to understand (and never boring) format. I
think he will always be remembered for his "billions and billions" sound
bite which epitomized his sheer delight at the Cosmos topics.

Sagan's
influence on me was profound. I had always been an Astronomy buff, and
seeing Cosmos (when I was in my teens) piqued my curiosity. So much was
known about the Universe, but so much was still unanswered. He made me
want to know more - and thus became the driving force behind my many
years of pondering the cosmos. My greatest hope is to be considered on
par with him and his accomplishments.

My best friend
Lance Reinhardt was probably the greatest influence on me. He taught me
strength (his 31 years as a quadriplegic without ever being depressed
about it). He taught me faith (you can believe in god without having to
deal with organized religion). He taught me patience (nothing happens
quickly when you’re a quad). He brought me back from despair and gave me
a reason to live. This book is for you Lance.

Thank all of you Douglas, Carl and Lance -
may you all rest in peace.

Introduction

Where do we come from? This is
arguably the most important question facing all of mankind. Over the
years, many have attempted to explain the when, where, and how of
existence. The Bible's Book of Genesis attempts to do this and Douglas
Adams' own "What is Life, the Universe and Everything?" question posed
to Deep Thought put his own spin on this conundrum (you need to read the
Hitchhiker's trilogy to find the answer to that question . . .).

This
question really has 2 parts - What happened before life existed, and
the history of life (forms). Charles Darwin's theory of evolution does a
great job of addressing the latter, but scientists have done a poor job
of addressing the former. There is the Big Bang Theory about how the
Universe started - but from that point on to where Mr. Darwin picks it
up there are unsatisfying theories with many holes.

This book attempts to explain the chronology of our Solar System - from the Big Bang to the emergence of life on Earth.

I
approach this investigation from my background in Geology (B.S.
University of Michigan '85), which allows me to understand planetary
processes (and exploration). My lifelong fascination with "space" and
its stars and planets give me the interest and drive to create a
workable theory. I think of myself as "The stupidest genius" i.e. I am
smart enough to be invited to a MENSA party of geniuses - but everyone
there would consider me the "dumb one" (or more correctly, the slow one)
in the room. My greatest strength is my analysis skills - I am a
problem solver, and I consider this investigation to be a great
opportunity to test my skills. In the end, it took me years of research,
thinking and bouncing ideas off of others to come up with this book
(and theory). You would think that with all of the scientific geniuses
of Astronomy and (Planetary) Physics that have ever lived, we would
already have this theory. Who am I to challenge these titans, and what
makes my theory the best (so far)?

First you must
understand how things work in the (educational) scientific community. It
all starts with a prospective PhD student who must choose a topic for
his dissertation that is original (NOTE: I am using "his" as a generic.
There are many fine female students that do great work in the sciences,
and I highly encourage more to enter this field). In other words, his
research must have never been done before by anyone. He spends a few
years collecting data and crafting his dissertation, and when he is
ready to graduate, he must defend his dissertation from a panel of
questioners (with "high" credentials in his area of study). He must be
the expert in his area, or he will not graduate.

A
student cannot become an expert at everything, which is what would be
required of him if he chooses too broad a scope for his research. He
would not be able to defend such a dissertation from his questioners.
This means that students usually choose a very narrow scope (depth of
knowledge vs. breadth) to work with. Think of a picture puzzle with
thousands of pieces and he chooses (just) one to concentrate on
(describe).

Since dissertations are of narrow scope,
some of their conclusions contradict (or just don't agree with) other
(closely related) theories. No one gets a PhD for rationalizing
contradictory theories, so these contradictions are tolerated (ignored)
by scientists. Most will assume that future theories will smooth out the
inconsistencies - they're just not significant enough to worry about
right now. In the meantime, they have their own (narrow) viewpoint to
worry about. Everyone has a piece of the puzzle - but no one is looking
at them and arraigning them to produce the finished (picture) puzzle.

Personally,
I have a dogged determination to make all the pieces fit together. I
don't accept the 80/20 rule (80% done is "good enough" - just ignore the
20% that can't ever be figured out). This brings me to my first guiding
principle:

Principle 1: The theory must fit ALL of the data

(in this case - observational data).

The Rampson Theory of Solar System Genesiswill attempt to use
as much observational data as I personally know of (NOTE: Since Celsius
named his temperature scale "centigrade" and years after his death it
was re-named after him - I figure no matter what I call my theory, if
it's right it will be named after me anyway. So I'm not being
egotistical here). I do have a good knowledge of astronomical data, but
it's up to the reader to decide if I "got it right".

Principle 2: Occam's razor is in effect.

The simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

I will use this principle to guide me when making choices between conflicting data.
A
great many scientists postulate that there are other Earth-like planets
out there – perhaps with human (like) civilizations. The SETI (Search
for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) initiative records radio-wave
emanations from many star systems and uses computers to look for
patterns that might indicate intelligent alien worlds. For me, in order
to “go where no one has gone before”, I need to do something different
from past prognosticators on the genesis of the Solar System. This is
the “seed” from which my whole theory springs forth.

Assumption 1: The Earth is unique

(i.e. we are alone in the Universe).

Drawing
on inspiration from Douglas Adams, this is where I apply the Infinite
Improbability "principle". Say that you are sitting in a spaceship (with
"Heart") on the other side of the galaxy. First you calculate the
chance (probability) that the Earth is unique in the universe. This
should be a very large number (roughly one out of every star in the
universe). You take this number (call it lue42) and "plug that into" the
Infinite Improbability "drive", and poof! , you are transported to the
Earth.

What this means is that when I describe my
theory, all of the probabilities of the events I describe must have
equal probability with lue42. This means that my theory (model) must
contain some really unlikely events (bordering on fantasy). It has to be
this way (Douglas Adams said so!), so I ask that you suspend your
disbeliefs (take a deep breath) and read the entire theory before you
consider if I'm right. Just remember that the probability of anything
happening in the Universe is greater than zero . . .

A note from the Author

2009 was a very
significant year in science. It is the International Year of Astronomy -
let me quote from their website (www.astronomy2009.org) as to why this
is.

The International Year of Astronomy 2009 (IYA2009)
is a global celebration of astronomy and its contributions to society
and culture and marks the 400th anniversary of the first use of an
astronomical telescope by Galileo Galilei. The aim of the Year is to
stimulate worldwide interest, especially among young people, in
astronomy and science under the central theme "The Universe, Yours to
Discover".

2009 is also the 40th anniversary of the
Apollo 11 Moon landing. The amount and quality of scientific data that
was collected from this trip is unparalleled in history. This was
arguably the greatest achievement of mankind.

2009 is
also the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. He is arguably the
world's greatest known scientist - and most misunderstood. His
procrastination almost kept The Origin of the Species from ever being
written / published. I will try to learn from his mistakes -which is one
reason that this book is finally being published . . .

It
is my greatest wish to honor these anniversaries with my attempt to
explain the genesis of the Solar System. I hope this work will stimulate
people of all ages to discover Astronomy for themselves. If I achieve
either of these goals, then it was well worth it to write this book.

Before I explain
the entirety of my theory I would like to give you (the reader), an
opportunity to guess at it. I will help by providing you with the key
piece of information that validates my theory. If you have faith in your
(personal) scientific methodology and are driven by curiosity, you
should be able to derive the theory all by yourself! This won't be easy,
but I feel that you should be given a chance to show off your
intellect.

All you have to do is take the information
that I give you, and use induction (going from the specific to the
general) to figure out the timeline of events that created the Solar
System we see today. You know that you can do this, and I have faith
that you can. Are you ready? The answer is . . . Saturn.

SATURN? Why Saturn? What the heck
does that have to do with the creation of the Solar System? How could
this information possibly lead to a theory of Solar System genesis?

In
order to address these questions, let me be a bit more specific. Saturn
has some interesting qualities - chief among them is the strange
hexagonal "standing wave" in the clouds of its north pole (it stays in
one place as the clouds rotate around it. It does look cool! Check out
the video loop on Wikipedia.com under Saturn). Talk about unusual! What
the heck could cause this to happen?

In addition to the northern clouds,
another unusual feature of Saturn is its axial tilt. If you were
standing above Saturn's North Pole, you would see that the planet
rotates around a point that is not quite where you are standing (the
North Pole). This is called the axial tilt, as the planet is actually
"tilted" from the straight "up and down" position of the poles.

Conundrum 2: Saturn's axial tilt -- The planet rotates around its axis which does not go through the poles.

Saturn
has an axial tilt of 27 degrees, measured from the angle between the
rotation axis and the poles - which is quite similar to Earth's 23
degrees of tilt. This means that Saturn has seasons - somewhat like the
Earth.

Scientists believe that the Earth's axial tilt
was caused by an impact event (The Big Whack) - and this mechanism is
probably the best (only) way to create an axial tilt. If we applied this
idea to Saturn, there must have been an object that impacted Saturn
that caused it to tilt (makes sense). Saturn is a gas giant - it may not
even have a solid core, so what is the impact mechanism that made it
tilt?

One last thing. Saturn and Jupiter have a 2:1
orbital resonance. This means that for every orbit Saturn makes around
the Sun, Jupiter makes two. No other planets have this kind of
"symmetry" in their orbits. Most scientists take this to mean that
Saturn and Jupiter came close to each other - and after all the pushing
and pulling - they settled into these orbits. Saturn must have moved . .
.

It's my belief that there is only one answer that
addresses all the observations - and once you have it, you can apply
induction / regression to discover and hit upon all of my theory. Are
you up to the task?

Of course I didn't start there myself . . .

In
order to understand The Rampson Theory of Solar System Genesis, you
need to understand some background information on how stars form and
die. This star making process is continuous i.e. it happened before,
it's happening now and it will happen in the future. Here is the basic
process:

How to make a star and then blow it up

In
order to make a star, you need start with a cloud of gas rich in
hydrogen. Each gas particle in the cloud has mass - and thus gravity, so
over time this gravity starts to pull the particles together. As this
process continues, the center of the gas cloud gets more and more dense.
Eventually the particles are as close as they can physically get (they
are touching each other) - but gravity continues to (try and) pull them
closer. This builds up pressure (and heat) until finally 2 particles are
squeezed together into one.

This is fusion - where 2
light-weight particles are forced together to create a single heavier
particle plus energy! These 2 particles are typically hydrogen-1 and the
heavier particle is helium-2. NOTE: atoms are defined by how many
protons they have in their nucleus (called atomic number, signified by
the dash and number at the end of the word). Hydrogen only has one
proton and is the lightest (in mass) of all elements. For comparison,
uranium-92 is very dense and 'heavy" and it has 92 protons per atom.
This fusion reaction is what makes stars shine.

This
fusion "burning" reaction creates "outward" pressure that counteracts
gravity. As long as the star is "shining", it will not "shrink" any
further. Stars happily burn (fuse) hydrogen for millions or billions of
years (our own Sun has been fusing for 4.7 Gy (billion years) - and is
only halfway though its hydrogen supply). But eventually the hydrogen
"runs out".

It's not exactly correct to say that a star
runs out of hydrogen-1, but the remaining hydrogen is not enough to
sustain the fusion reactions. When this fusion stops (or sputters), the
star's energy output drops. This energy (outward pressure) was
counteracting the gravitational "pull" keeping the particles from
getting squeezed even more. When this fusion energy level drops, the
star begins to contract as gravity overwhelms all. The star contracts
and the pressure (and temperature) goes up again. This continues until
fusion begins with this next lightest element (helium-2). The star now
starts to "burn" (fuse) helium-2 (with hydrogen-1) to create lithium-3
(and through the "triple-alpha-process" where three helium-2 atoms are
combined to create one carbon-6 atom).

Conundrum 3: The scarcity of beryllium-4 and boron-5

The
triple-alpha-process "skips over" these 2 "products" - so what process
does create them (actually fusing 2 helium-2 atoms to create a
beryllium-4 atom is possible but unstable, with the beryllium-4 atom
decaying soon afterward)?

This helium-2 fusion phase
doesn't last for millions of years - more like a hundred. When the
helium-2 runs out, gravity squeezes particles closer together and
pressure and temperature go up - and the next heavier particle gets
burned (fused). If the star's starting mass is high enough, this process
continues until you create nickel-28. Nickel has the highest "bonding
energy" - you cannot use fusion to make anything heavier (nickel
radioactively decays to iron-26). What you end up with, at the end of
this process is a star with (onion) "layers" of different material
(lighter on the outside to heavier near the core).

Figure 4 The onion-like layers of a massive, evolved star just prior to core collapse. (Not to scale.)

Eventually gravity squeezes the core of the star into a material called electron degenerate matter.

Degenerate matter
is matter which has such very high density that the dominant
contribution to its pressure rises from the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
The pressure maintained by a body of degenerate matter is called the
degeneracy pressure, and arises because the Pauli principle forbids the
constituent particles to occupy identical quantum states. Any attempt to
force them close enough together that they are not clearly separated by
position must place them in different energy levels. Therefore,
reducing the volume requires forcing many of the particles into
higher-energy quantum states. This requires additional compression
force, and is manifest as a resisting pressure. - Wikipedia

Suffice
to say that electron degenerate matter has atoms squeezed so close
together that electrons cannot jump between orbitals (they are "stuck").

Usually
when you increase temperature, particles tend to get more energetic
(like boiling water) - i.e. they start moving around, but when you
increase the temperature on electron degenerate matter - nothing
happens. The heat is trapped and cannot radiate out in any way. Over
time, this traps a tremendous amount of heat in the electron degenerate
matter.

The star continues to fuse more and more
"heavy" (massive) elements into electron degenerate matter, and
eventually fusion stops. If the star's core is not sufficiently massive
to collapse, the star will eject the gas "envelope" into what is called a
planetary nebula, and the core becomes a white dwarf star.

If
the star is sufficiently massive, then the core will eventually exceed
the Chandrasekhar limit (1.38 solar masses - The Sun = 1 solar mass), at
which point this (electron degeneracy pressure) mechanism
catastrophically fails. The forces holding atomic nuclei apart in the
innermost layer of the core suddenly give way, the core implodes due to
its own mass, and no further fusion process can ignite or prevent
collapse this time.

The core collapses in on itself
with velocities reaching 70,000 km/s (0.23c), resulting in a rapid
increase in temperature and density. Electrons and protons merge via
electron capture - producing neutrons. The inner core eventually reaches
(typically) 30 km in diameter and a density comparable to that of an atomic
nucleus - and further collapse is abruptly stopped by (nuclear) strong force
interactions and by (neutron) degeneracy pressure.

This
abrupt stop causes a shock wave that propagates outward from the core.
This shock wave then transfers energy (by a not well understood
process), to the outer layers of the star which then explode in a
supernova. When the progenitor star is below about 20 solar masses
(depending on the strength of the explosion and the amount of material
that falls back), the degenerate remnant of a core collapse is a neutron
star. Above this mass the remnant collapses to form a black hole.

Figure 5 Within a massive, evolved star (a) the onion-layered shells
of elements undergo fusion, forming an iron core (b) that reaches
Chandrasekhar-mass and starts to collapse. The inner part of the core is
compressed into neutrons (c), causing infalling material to bounce (d)
and form an outward-propagating shock front (red). The shock starts to
stall (e), but it is re-invigorated by a process that may include
neutrino interaction. The surrounding material is blasted away (f),
leaving only a degenerate remnant.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Core_collapse_scenario.png

The remnant of a supernova explosion consists
of a compact object and a rapidly expanding shock wave of material. This
cloud of material sweeps up the surrounding interstellar medium during a
free expansion phase, which can last for up to two centuries. The wave
then gradually undergoes a period of adiabatic expansion, and will
slowly cool and mix with the surrounding interstellar medium over a
period of about 10,000 years.

In standard Astronomy,
the Big Bang produced hydrogen, helium, and traces of lithium, while all
heavier elements are synthesized in stars and supernovae. Supernovae
tend to enrich the surrounding interstellar medium with metals, which
for astronomers means all of the elements other than hydrogen and helium
(and is a different definition than that used in chemistry).

These injected elements ultimately
enrich the molecular clouds that are the sites of star formation. Thus,
each stellar generation has a slightly different composition, going from
an almost pure mixture of hydrogen and helium to a more metal-rich
composition. Supernovae are the dominant mechanism (but not the only
one) for distributing these heavier elements, which are formed in a star
during its period of nuclear fusion, throughout space. The different
abundances of elements in the material that forms a star have important
influences on the star's life, and may decisively influence the
possibility of having planets orbiting it.

The kinetic
energy of an expanding supernova remnant can trigger star formation due
to compression of nearby, dense molecular clouds in space. The increase
in turbulent pressure can also prevent star formation if the cloud is
unable to lose the excess energy.

Evidence from
daughter products of short-lived radioactive isotopes shows that a
nearby supernova helped determine the composition of the Solar System
4.5 billion years ago, and may even have triggered the formation of this
system. Supernova production of heavy elements over astronomic periods
of time ultimately made the chemistry of life on Earth possible.

NOTE: Most of the preceding information was taken from Wikipedia.

How the Universe came into being

Let me
introduce what I call the Current Scientific Belief (CSB). This acronym
represents the most current theories that the majority of the scientific
community believe are true (Conventional Wisdom?). This is what I will
use to "define" the base from which my theories will diverge.

The
CSB is that an infinitesimally small (and dense, and hot) "dot" of
matter exploded and created the Universe. This was called The Big Bang
and it happened around 13.7 Gya (billion years ago - depending on the
value of the Hubble Constant - which varies). The explosion created
hydrogen-1 and helium-2 (and some lithium-3) molecules in a huge gas
cloud - which quickly expanded and (~1 billion years later) cooled and
"condensed" into huge (Hypergiant) stars the size of galaxies
(Generation I stars). These stars exploded into supernovas (a couple of
billion years later ~11 Gya), leaving behind massive black holes and a
variety of elements (still mostly hydrogen-1 and helium-2) in a "gas".
The black holes captured this "gas" with their tremendous gravity. As
the gas was pulled toward the black hole it heated up and started
orbiting (moving around the black hole) faster and faster. This was the
genesis of galaxies.

This gas coalesced into stars - mostly blue giants. One of these was the progenitor of our Solar System.

This type of supernova (a type II
core-collapse) always creates either a neutron star or a black hole -
depending on the starting mass of the star. Assuming that King was below
the threshold of mass to generate a black hole (i.e. less than 20 solar
masses - 20 Suns) - then there must have been a neutron star created
from the supernova of King (call it Spider). Most of these neutron stars
are "expelled" from the galaxy, as the force of a supernova can really
get a star moving! This is assumed to have happened for Spider.

The proplyd (aka dust cloud) eventually
"collapsed" i.e. gravity pulled the dust (molecules) closer and closer
together. As the proplyd collapsed, the dust started to orbit the center
and move faster and faster (this is like the spinning ice skater
pulling in their arms and moving faster). Eventually the dust in the
center coalesced into the Sun, and the rest of the dust coalesced into
planets. Viola, we now have the Solar System!

This
Solar System model should create planets that move faster in their orbit
the further you get to the Sun - which is exactly what we see today.
The speed (velocity) of the planet Mercury is about 50 km/s while the
velocity of Pluto is about 4500 km/s. The speed of the Sun's rotation is
about 700 km/h, which is (much) slower than theory predicts.

Conundrum 4: The Sun's angular momentum is too slow

The Sun should be moving (rotating) faster - but it doesn't.

Because
of the way a star forms ("onion") layers of different materials before
it supernovas, the lightest elements (near the outer edge of the star)
tend to "fly" out the furthest, while the heavy elements (near the
center) tend to not be blasted too far away. This means that you form
light element planets further out (like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
Neptune) while closer to the center you get "terrestrial" planets made
of heavy elements (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars).

Conundrum 5: Not a smooth mass distribution in the Solar System

The
Sun is made up of light elements - yet it is at the center of the Solar
System. The Kuiper Belt (of which Pluto is a member) is made up of
relatively heavy (massive) elements even though it is far away from the
center.

This means that this simple model doesn't
explain all of the features that we see in today's Solar System. So we
need to modify this . . .

The moon is made of Greene cheese! I never understood that statement as the
moon never really looked green to me, but I suppose that someone had
to take a stab at what the moon was made of. Despite what poets and
philosophers believed, we now know that the moon is made of plagioclase - a
calcic feldspar (and some basalt), thanks to the moon rocks that were brought
back by the Apollo astronauts.

In order to understand where the Moon came from, scientists needed to know
how old it was. This would narrow down the possibilities so that scientists
could concentrate on the most likely ones. After using isotopic analysis it was
determined that the lunar basalts were the youngest at 3.16 Gy, while the rocks
from the "highlands" were 4.6 Gy. This was a very interesting result, since the
oldest rocks on the earth are around 3.8 Gy. How in the heck can the moon be
"older" than the earth? We'll explore that later.

Measure twice, cut once is the wise "best practice' of carpenters. Taking
measurements are important so that you don't make a mistake later. When
formulating a scientific theory, there are important things that you need to
measure. Weights, distances, velocity, etc. data are all needed to build your
scientific model. You need to pick a point of reference (foundation) from which
the rest of your theory will take shape.

Apollo 11 was the first manned spacecraft to touch down on the Moon. I
remember it well as I was an 8 year old child and I needed to stay up till
almost midnight (something that rarely ever happened). Nothing could compare to
the excitement I felt watching Neil Armstrong become the first man on the Moon.
Now who was that second man? Umm ... .

Anyway, one of the most important (scientific) actions that Neil and Buzz
did on the Moon (in 1969) was to hit a golf ball! No, actually it was to plant
a retroreflector. A retroreflector is basically a large mirror which is used
for laser rangefinding i.e. you shoot a laser from the Earth to the Moon and by
timing the return (reflected) beam you can determine the distance to the Moon
(with a high degree of accuracy).

This range finding has been going on
continuously since 1969, and we now know that the Moon is moving away from the
Earth at 38mm (1.5 inch) per year.

This is an unique measurement! You cannot make this (direct) measurement
(distance vs. time) ANYWHERE else in the Solar System. For instance, if you
landed on Mars and installed a retroreflector, you could measure the distance
from Earth to Mars. But if you wanted to know if Mars is moving away from the
Earth, you would have to add estimates into the calculation (time of day, time
of year, where Earth and Mars are in relation with each other). Since the Sun
has no solid surface, you could not do this (direct) measurement there either.
There would be no (direct) way to tell if Earth is moving away from (or closer
to) Mars (or the Sun) over time.

In order to move the Moon into a higher orbit (which is what the data is
telling us), you would need to add energy to "escape from" the force of
(Earth's) gravity. The CSB says that the action of the Moon pulling on the
ocean (tides) "steals" energy from the Earth - so the Earth slows down
(rotation) and the Moon moves away (higher orbit).

NOTE: As the Earth slows down, the day gets longer (24 hours +), and the
less days you have in a year. This also means that "high noon" - the time of
day when the sun is directly overhead - shifts to later in the day. So in order
to sync noontime with the Sun, you need to shift the clock. This is why we add
"leap seconds" at the end of the year (this happened in 2008).

If the Moon is moving away from the Earth - wouldn't it also be moving
closer to the Sun (in at least one position of its orbit - perihelion)?

Conundrum 6: The Moon's perihelion is shrinking

How can you add energy to an orbit and get closer to the Sun (the opposite should happen)?
Many scientists would argue that since the Moon is much closer to the
Earth, its gravity would "dominate" over the Sun's, so that a shrinking
perihelion is not a conundrum.
Let's play devil's advocate here, what if the CSB has it wrong and the opposite is true? What if the Earth is moving away from the
Moon?

Saying that the Earth is unique is an understatement. The Earth has minable quantities of all
the elements - i.e. very rich in minerals. It has huge quantities of
water and plenty of gas (nitrogen, oxygen, etc.). The core's magnetic
dynamo protects us from the solar wind and the ozone layer protects us
from UV radiation. The Moon itself "sweeps" up comets and asteroids
while creating tides that help drive the weather. The axial tilt gives
us the seasons - which are a dynamo for life. The Earth is truly a gem.

In simple terms, moving the Earth in one direction would "shorten"
the Moon's orbit on that side and lengthen it on the other. Either the
Moon's orbit would become more and more elliptical or it would need
energy to pull its orbit back into a (larger) circle. It already has a
mechanism to get energy (pulling on the Earth's tides), so this is a
possibility.

The Earth can only move away from the Moon in one of
two ways; either it is accelerating away from the Moon, or it is moving
in a certain direction which the Moon is not. The data disproves number
one as the retroreflector ranging shows that the Moon is moving away
from the Earth at a constant velocity. As for the second assertion - we
need more data! Let's examine the Earth/Moon system in more detail.

The CSB says that the Moon was created from the
impact (The Big Whack) of a mars-size planetoid (Theia) into the Earth.
There are 3 different scenarios for this impact:

Theia and Earth were in the same orbit - in this case there would be
no velocity vector toward or away from the Sun (like a car running into
you from behind or from the front, your car stays on its original path -
with its velocity changed).

Theia strikes the Earth at an (oblique) angle - in this case the
Earth gets "pushed" away from its original trajectory - but it
eventually returns to a stable orbit, albeit closer or further away from
the Sun (if your car gets sideswiped, you keep moving in the same
direction, but you move laterally away from the impact and eventually
recover - albeit in another lane).

Theia strikes the Earth at a right angle - in this case, the Earth
gets pushed away from its original trajectory - but it (may) never
return to a "stable" orbit (your car gets T-boned) i.e. it depends on
whether Theia ever "stops".

Number 3 is the only scenario where Earth can continue to alter its orbit - i.e. moving away from the initial impact location.

The CSB on Theia is that it formed close to the Earth (maybe at a
Lagrange point - where the Sun's gravity and Earth's gravity cancel each
other out), and then was disturbed from its orbit - putting it on a
collision course with the Earth. I fail to see how a planetoid that was
orbiting in the same direction as the Earth could move laterally and
strike the Earth perpendicular to that orbit. It would most likely
impact like a sideswipe or a head-on and not like a T-bone (or a
rear-ender).

Assuming that the impact was a "T-bone" like event,
then Theia would have had to either come from the direction of the Sun
or from the opposite (Jupiter side). The first possibility is that Theia
formed close to the Sun - which somehow "threw" Theia at the Earth. The
second possibility would include Jupiter's gravity 'disturbing" the
asteroid belt which dislodged Theia - but that would be a much harder
"shot' as Jupiter is 5x further away from the Earth than the Sun (and
has less gravity). It makes more sense that Theia hit the Earth from
"inside" (Sun side) of its orbit (possibly accelerated and steered by
the Sun's gravity) - causing the Earth to move away from the Sun. This
means that the Earth's "year" would get longer - thus necessitating
adding leap seconds . . .

Proposal 1

The Earth is moving away from the Sun

because of the (initial) Theia impact and Newton's 1st Law Of Motion (a
body in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force).
The Moon gains energy from pulling on the Earth's tides and can increase
its orbit in line with Earth's motion away from the Sun.

A consequence of Proposal 1 is that the Moon's perihelion (closet
approach to the Sun) is a constant (distance), assuming that the Moon is
not also moving away from the Sun (it isn't).

Lets make a model

Think of the Earth as a rubber ball with a (hard) coating of plaster.

What
happens when you toss it up and hit it with a baseball bat? Poof! You
get a cloud of plaster dust while the rubber ball shoots far away. Theia
intercepted the Earth in a perpendicular crossing route - like the bat.
The Big Whack (and CSB) says that Theia merged with the Earth and (part
of the Earth's) outer crust was thrown into orbit - where it formed a
(dust) ring and then accreted into the Moon.

The rubber ball model is not complete enough so we need to add more
information to the model. The Earth (ball) is always in motion orbiting
the "center" (Sun). So visualize a (fast) rotating platform with a
T-ball set up. When the ball is hit, it flies far away while the plaster
would tend to more concentrated in a smaller area (like a centrifuge).
The plaster pieces (mostly) have the same trajectory before AND after
the impact.

This illustrates that there was not a "ring" of material from The
Big Whack - more like a blob. This blob also retained the original
orbital trajectory as the Earth (pre-impact). It was this blob that
coalesced to form the Moon.

Proposal 2

The Moon's perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) marks the original orbit of the pre-impact Earth.

The Moon's material has not moved relative to the Sun since its
formation (as part of the pre-impact Earth). The Moon is the "original"
Earth.

When the Apollo astronauts brought rock samples back
from the Moon,scientists were hopeful to find rock that might have come
from Theia. This would have been a very important find as it would
answer many questions about The Big Whack. They did not find anything
that could be considered a candidate Theia sample.

Conundrum 7: Missing rock evidence for Theia

Where are the samples?

No solid rock evidence of the Theia impact means that The Big Whack theory needs to be changed.

Proposal 3

The Moon formed from a "blob" of material that occupied a relatively small region of space.

It coalesced into the Moon relatively quickly - thus (highland)
moon rocks have a consistent (very ancient) age of 4.6 Gya (not much
changed from the pre-impact Earth).

NOTE: Erik Asphaug recently proposed a theory that the Moon was actually 2 blobs that "soft impacted".
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110803/full/news.2011.456.htmlThis impact created the axial tilt (23 degrees) of the Earth. There
are also other planets with similar axial tilts - Mars (25 degrees),
Saturn (27 degrees) and Neptune (29 degrees). The tilts are very similar
- could their tilts be caused by the same impact mechanism? A single
explanation that would cover all of these cases would be more plausible
than separate events. . . .

Out of all of the planets and moons of the Solar System, Mars is most
like the Earth. Recent explorations have concluded that Mars had
substantial surface water in the past and also a much thicker
atmosphere. So Mars looked a lot like Earth until about 1 Gya - it even
has seasons because of its axial tilt.

Conundrum 8: Mars' axial tilt

Where did Mars get its axial tilt?

If the Earth got its axial tilt from an impact event, then where did
Mars get its from? If we assume that we are correct about the genesis
of the Moon, then we also need to believe that Mars was impacted as
Earth was. It seems very unlikely that Mars would be impacted with just
the right size of planetoid and at just the right angle (and velocity)
to create an almost identical axial tilt to the Earth (and since no
large moon was created, the mechanics would have had to be very
different).

There are other unique oddities about Mars. The biggest of which is
the question of its atmosphere. According to CSB, Mars had an atmosphere
very similar to Earth's in the beginning (4 Gya) - and it lost (most
of) it. Mars' gravity was not strong enough to hold onto its own
atmosphere. This begs the question, if Mars' gravity was not strong
enough to hold an atmosphere, then how did it attract an atmosphere in
the first place?

Conundrum 9: Mars' (anomalously) thick atmosphere

Where did Mars get its atmosphere from? And while we're at it, where did Mars get its water from?

According to CSB, Theia (the impactor on the Earth) was "Mars
sized". That's an interesting conjecture. Basically anything bigger
would have destroyed the Earth, and anything smaller would not have been
big enough to create the Moon. So "Mars sized" was 'just right" (The
Goldilocks Theory?).

What else is "Mars sized" in relation to the Earth? If you removed
the inner and outer core of the Earth (3488 miles in diameter), there
would be enough room to fit Mars (3396 miles in diameter) inside (A
perfect [97%] fit! Only 92 miles to spare). Hmm, now that we have Mars
inside of Earth (experimentally), how does it compare to the Earth's
mantle (rock) around it?

Mars' rotation is quite close to Earth's (a Mars day (sol) is
24 hours and 39 minutes). Mars' mean density (~4.0 gm/cm3) is about the
same as the Earth's mantle. Mars has significant amounts of Olivine -
the most prevalent mineral in the Earth's mantle. Mars also has loads of
iron - which we have here in abundance.

I think you would be hard-pressed to see any differences between
Mars and the Earth's mantle. They look the same (same color?). They are
composed of the same minerals and elements. They have the same density.
They have the same rotation and tilt. The hole in the mantle (minus the
cores) is the same size as Mars. I would say that when you compare the
two, you would say EYE-den-ti-cal. The reason Mars is similar to the
Earth is because Mars is the Earth (or part of it).

Proposal 4

The impact of Theia on the Earth created Mars (and the Moon).

There is a theory today that says that Earth had water when Theia
impacted it. Some Moon dust (brought back by astronauts) that is in the
shape of spheres, seemed to have formed from water. If the Earth had
water at the time of the Theia impact, then some of that water was
captured by Mars when it was created.

In order to "shoot" Mars into the orbit it has today, the Theia
impact must have been a doozy. It really would take the equivalent of a
baseball bat hitting a homer (instead of a bunt). This means that Theia
had a tremendous amount of energy (momentum) in order to do this. It
would be very "tricky" to have an impact of this force, without turning
the Earth into an asteroid belt! What the heck could have done this?

Momentum (p) equals mass (m) times the velocity (v); p = mv. You
can increase either m or v and you increase momentum (p). In the case of
The Big Whack, I believe that both of these would need to be very high.
A good Physics student could model this by calculating the force
vectors and using the bulk modulus of the material etc., but I doubt
that you could understand everything that happened in the impact. So I
will do this with analogy and hand-waving instead . . .

Let's construct a (more accurate) model for the Earth. Fill a
bowling ball sized balloon with thick tar (the Earth would not have been
totally solid at this point in time [4.6Gya] - in fact it would have
been mostly molten inside. That's why I chose thick tar for the model)
and then cover the balloon with plaster (paint it blue) and set it on a
table (having Atlas hold it on his shoulders while standing on turtles
would be more appropriate). This is a good approximation of the Earth as
the continental crust is fairly rigid while the mantle is ductile. Now
let's model an impact!

Take a baseball and throw it at the balloon (the
baseball is Theia), what happens? The baseball bounces off the balloon
and shatters the area around the impact. There might be a bulge on the
other side of the balloon from the impact - with a few cracks in the
plaster. Now that wasn't a good enough impact. We need MORE POWER!

Now let's take a cannon ball (same size as the baseball) and fire a cannon at the balloon (after fixing the plaster).

Now
what happens? As the cannon ball hits, it keeps going into the balloon.
This expands the balloon (the added volume of the cannon ball), which
cracks the entire plaster surface, and the plaster goes flying. On the
side opposite where the cannon ball impacted, goopy tar gets blown out
(displacing tar the same size as the cannon ball), but most of the tar
stays put since there isn't any (much) force being applied to it. The
balloon then flies off the table as the force of the impact gets absorbed
by the tar and translated into movement of the balloon. So now let's
look at the results.

The table is covered with plaster (there is also some plaster on the
floor). There is a blob of tar (far away) on the floor along with a
balloon with a cannon ball embedded in the center of it. Oh yeah, the
cannon ball also pushed some of the plaster into the balloon tar. This
experiment looks pretty accurate - you should be able to actually do
this test (don't do it at home!).

The plaster (on the table) represents the Moon as the dust comes
together around the initial impact to form the Moon (in the same place
as the pre-impact Earth). The blob that came out the back represents
Mars - and since most of the momentum of the cannon ball was translated
into the tar blob - there would be enough energy for the blob to fly far
from the initial impact. The balloon represents the Earth - with a
metal core, moving away from its original orbital position. And that
piece of plaster that was pushed into the tar by the cannon ball
represents Australia (Pangaea)! NOTE: The (land) surface area of the
Earth is almost the same size as the entire surface of Mars (149 million
sq. km vs. 145 million).

That certainly sounds plausible! This would also
explain why you don't see any remnants of Theia on the Moon (or Earth)
today (it was solid iron). This also explains where Mars got its tilt
and rotation from (the tar blob was rotating the same as the rest of the
Earth, and the impact tilted the Earth as the blob was being shot out).

As Theia approached the Earth closer and closer, it would have
pushed the atmosphere away before it impacted. This atmosphere would
"bunch up" on the other side of the Earth. The impact would also cause
tremendous heat - which would vaporize any water on the side of impact -
creating steam, which would go into the atmosphere (which is bunched up
behind the Earth). When the tar blob (Mars) exited the balloon (Earth),
it would go right though the thickest part of the atmosphere. Mars'
gravity would have grabbed a chunk of the atmosphere (which had water in
it).

Note: Venus' atmosphere is 93 times as dense as
Earth's - even though they formed in nearly the same area (and they are
almost the same size). Why is Venus' atmosphere so dense? Maybe a better
question is why is Earth's so thin (in relation)?

There was also enough steam to mix with the plaster (Moon stuff)
which is where you get those nice spheres from off the Moon. NOTE: Not
all of the plaster was used in the formation of the Moon. Some of it was
blasted out of the "general neighborhood" of the Earth/Moon and became
asteroids. We will talk about that later. Some of it certainly fell back
onto the Earth.

But we need to know more about Theia.

Conundrum 10: Origin and composition of Theia

Where did Theia come from and what was it made out of? Was it solid iron?

Conundrum 11: High velocity of Theia

How the heck did Theia get moving so fast?

Since
the remnants of Theia sit at the center of the Earth today, what do we
know about the Earth's core? This should give us some hints for
answering those Conundrums.